4 entries from November 2008

November 22, 2008

This is an amazing speech full of passion and articulate, intelligent points. One thing to make note of, Olberman makes it clear at the begining of his monologue that neither he, anyone in his extended family or circle of friends are gay, he is simply standing up against what he sees as wrong.

November 13, 2008

People need to be overtly aware that opposing marriage equality is anti-marriage, anti-family and anti-child.

Nothing changes when an anti-equality and anti-gay group adds family to their name, like the Massachusetts Family Institute. They are anti-family and we need to say that until others hear it.

Nothing
is different when marriage-equality opponents phrase their nefarious
aims as wanting to protect traditional marriage. They know as well as
anyone that they are talking about specific churches' religious
rituals, not civil marriage. They gleefully redefine civil marriage,
the actual traditional marriage, in narrow religious terms. That
excludes many and protects nothing. They are anti-marriage.

Marriage-equality
champion, sex columnist and adoptive dad Dan Savage has picked up on
the underlying contradiction of the anti folk. In his New York Times op-ed column,
he focuses on the just-passed Arkansas ballot initiative banning
homosexual couples from being adoptive or foster parents. The 57% of
voters who approved that were not swayed by the solid evidence that
same-sex couples make excellent parents nor that the need for both
foster and adoptive parents has never been higher. Those pushing this
ban are unquestionably anti-family and anti-child. We need to say it
aloud.

Moreover, as Savage projects:

Most ominous, once “pro-family” groups start arguing that gay couples are unfit to raise children we might adopt,
how long before they argue that we’re unfit to raise those we’ve
already adopted? If lesbian couples are unfit to care for foster
children, are they fit to care for their own biological children?

The loss in California last week was heartbreaking. But what may be coming next is terrifying.

As
all this goes on, a bitter, defensive bit of humor arises as Mormons,
African Americans and others who as a group supported Prop. 8 say in
effect, "Who, us?" The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints
officials seem genuinely surprised at protests following their
bankrolling the initiative and providing thousands of street and phone
volunteers. The official statement from them says they were just doing their First Amendment protected civic duty, only to be unfairly singled out.

In a recent WGBH Greater Boston segment,
Gary Daffin, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political
Caucus, discussed the 70% black voting in California for Prop. 8. He is
black. He seems sure those voters went with their church position. He
adds that Barack Obama among many others conflates civil marriage with
church ritual. He believes Obama likely will get it in addition to his
pre-election opposition to the ballot initiative.

The blame of the passing of Proposition 8 should not be placed
on the shoulders of blacks, Latinos or even religion, but rather the
blame should rightly be placed on the shoulders of our government. To
have framed our civil rights as a ballot question for a popular vote
was both wrong-hearted and wrong-headed. If my enslaved ancestors had
waited for their slaveholders to free them, predicated on a ballot vote
we all wouldn’t be living in the America we know today. And Barack
Obama would not be our president-elect.

Her defense is
fairly weak though. It relies on the we-weren't-the-only-ones
reasoning. She does, however, call on some stereotypes that seem to
have basis in reality. She figures both the GLBT community and the
black one can get their acts together and work together. The GLBT side
"needs to work on its racism, white privilege, and single-issue
platform that thwart all efforts for coalition building with both
straight and queer communities of color, the African-American community
needs to work on its homophobia."

More communication and confrontation are in order here. As part of that, stripping the pro-family and pro-marriage
cloaks from the anti-gay and anti-marriage equality folk is key.
Denying marriage equality and rights to foster or adopt are
anti-marriage, anti-family and anti-child. Say it.

November 11, 2008

In California, the people have spoken or screamed, depending on how you look at marriage equality. The victory of Proposition 8 was, as the expression goes, a redefinition of marriage there. It reads Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Now the suits hit the fan and key questions are:

What happens to about 18,000 same-sex marriages there?

Can the simple ballot initiative make such a substantial state constitutional change bypassing the legislature?

Many on the pro-Prop. 8 side say they want existing SS marriages dissolved or converted to domestic partnerships, which California also permits. During the summer, state Attorney General Jerry Brown said that if this passed, it would only be prospective and not affect existing marriages. That may well end up in court too.

The real battle seems to be shaping up over a finer point of law — does this new amendment represent a major revision to the state constitution? If so, it would have to be approved by two-thirds of both houses of the legislature.

NYU Law Professor Arthur S. Leonard recapped the initial suits to overturn the vote here. The yes-on-8 forces have taken the tack that this was a legitimate and simple ballot initiative resulting in an amendment that tweaked the constitution. Much as those favoring the 2000 Proposition 22, they take a the-people-have-spoken position. Prop. 22 was a change in family law that defined marriage; it tried to prevent SSM. It was what the state Supreme Court overruled as unconstitutional earlier this year to allow SSM.

As Leonard puts it:

If the California Supreme Court decides that Proposition 8 enacts an
"amendment," as that term is understood in California law, then it is
valid for purposes of the state constitution. But if the Court decides
that it is actually a "revision," then its enactment through the
initiative process is unauthorized and it will be stricken from the
state constitution by the Court.

Three of the suits share the view that Prop. 8 represents a revision. In light of the May 15th ruling legalizing SSM, they state that the court declared marriage is a fundamental right and sexual orientation is a suspect class. Therefore, "the arguments put forward in support of the traditional definition of
marriage were not weighty enough to overcome the claim of gay
Californians to marriage equality."

All groups are likely to weigh in with briefs, letters, arguments and supporting documents. This could take some time even to determine whether the state high court will be able to decide.

Evolving
from opponent (tradition and then veto) to neutral (let the courts
decide) to proponent (no-on-Prop. 8), he made his strongest, most
hopeful statements yesterday. Speaking with CNN's John King, he said of the passage of the amendment:

"It
is unfortunate, but is not the end because I think this will go back
into the courts. … It's the same as in the 1948 case when blacks and
whites were not allowed to marry. This falls into the same category."

As is the wont of such manly men, he apparently dragged out a sports analogy
from his earlier life. He compared the ensuing struggle to overrule the
amendment to a lifter who cannot raise a heavy weight. "I learned that
you should never ever give up. . . . They should never give up. They
should be on it and on it until they get it done."

We can
forever kick around Obama's complicity in Prop. 8's passage. Many say
he may even secretly be for marriage equality, even as he mouths the
separate-but-(un)equal civil unions pablum. The underlying concept is
that he could not have gotten elected had he been for civil rights for
homosexual couples. Unless he admits to that kind of expediency, we
can't know.

Meanwhile though, it is telling and a bit
inspirational that Schwarzenegger nails up a poster of truth with
compassion. He expected SSM supporters to attack the amendment. As he
put it, "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is
willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in
that area."

NYU law professor Arthur S. Leonard reported on three immediate court filings here. He separately analyzed what might happen to about 18,000 SSMs conducted since the state high-court ruling here.